" At present, a little more than half of all Americans own the sum total of about 320 million guns, 36% of which are handguns, but fewer than 100,000 of these guns are used in violent crimes."

Per year. You don't cite your source, but this is looks to me to be an underestimate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Crime Victimization Survey there are half about half a million people claiming to be victim of a gun related crime over the course of a year. I remember being a victim of a gun crime in America (the perp was an British-born and educated woman) where the police said that they weren't going to follow things up because they were too busy with more serious crimes and they weren't confident of successful prosecution, they didn't even bother to look at the bullets or interview the perpetrator. I'd be surprised if it was even officially reported for crime statistic purposes.

"So gun ownership tends increase where violence is the least."

You didn't discuss the confounding variables.

But nevertheless, nobody is saying that owning guns makes you intrinsically more criminal. The argument here seems to be that criminals or those with criminal intent will find it much easier to acquire firearms when there are hundreds of millions of them distributed in various degrees of security across the US.

And those that have firearms, who are basically normal and moral people, may find themselves in a situation where their firearm is used, even in error, and causes harm - a situation obviously avoided in the absence of firearms and something that isn't necessarily included in crime statistics.

"In the UK, where guns are virtually banned, 43% of home burglaries occur when people are in the home"

Yes, but here's a fun fact. I've been burgled a few times, all but one of those times I was at home when it happened. You know what the burglar was armed with? Nothing. Do you know what happened when I confronted him with a wooden weapon? He pretended he knew someone that lived there and when that fell through he ran away. When the police apprehended him, there wasn't any consideration that he might be armed with a gun and the police merely put handcuffs on him and he walked to the police car. He swore and made some idle and non-specific threats, according to the police, but that's it. In any event, this isn't extraordinary. There are still too many burglaries that do involve violence, of course.
Many burglaries in Britain are actually vehicle crimes, with opportunity thrown in. That is: The primary purpose of the burglary is to acquire car keys (this is often the easiest way to steal modern vehicles), but they may grab whatever else is valuable and easy too.

"The federal ban on assault weapons from '94-'04 did not impact amount and severity of school shootings."

What impact did it have on gun prevalence? Not really enough to stop the sentence 'guns are prevalent in the US' from being true....

" So, it's likely that gun-related crimes will increase if the general population is unarmed."

I missed the part where you provided the reasoning that connects your evidence to this conclusion.

"Note retail gun sales is the only area that gun control legislation can affect, since existing laws have failed to control for illegal activity. "

This is silly. Guns don't get manufactured and then 32% of them get stolen from the manufacturers warehouse. They get bought and some get subsequently stolen. If there were less guns made and sold there would be less guns available for felons to acquire them privately, less places to steal them or buy stolen ones on the black market, less opportunity for renting or purchasing from a retailer. Thus - less felons with guns.

If times got tough, and I thought robbing a convenience store was a way out of a situation I was in - I would not be able to acquire a firearm without putting myself in considerable danger that outweighs the benefits to the degree that pretending to have a gun is a better strategy. I have 'black market contacts' so I might be able to work my way to someone with a gun, but I really don't want to get into business with someone that deals guns because they are near universally bad news.

" states with right-to-carry laws have a 30% lower homicide rate and a 46% lower robbery rate."

Almost all States have such laws, making the comparison pretty meaningless.

"In fact, it's {number of mass shootings} declined from 42 incidents in 1990 to 26 from 2000-2012. Until recently, the worst school shootings took place in the UK or Germany. "

I think 'most dead in one incident' is a poor measure. I think total dead over a reasonable time period is probably better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_School_massacres
The UK appears once. It is approx. 1/5 the population of the US. The US manages to have five incidents in the top 10.

Statistics can be fun, though, huh?

" In any case, do we have any evidence to believe that the regulators (presumably the police in this instance) will be competent, honest, righteous, just, and moral enough to take away the guns from private citizens"

You've done a lot of hard work to show that most gun owners are law-abiding and non-violent. As such, the police won't go door to door, citizens will go to the police.

"How will you enforce the regulation and/or remove the guns from those who resist turning over their guns?"

The same way they remove contraband from other recalcitrants. I expect most of them will ask, demand, threaten and then use force - but as usual there will be examples where it won't be pretty.

"Do the police not need guns to get those with the guns to turn over their guns?"

That's how it typically goes down here in the UK, yes.

"Does this then not presume that "gun control" is essentially an aim for only the government (i.e., the centralized political elite and their minions) to have guns at the exclusion of everyone else?"

The military has had access to weapons the citizenry is not permitted to for some considerable time. Banning most handguns etc., would just be adding to the list.

"Is the government so reliable, honest, moral, virtuous, and forward thinking as to ensure that the intentions of gun control legislation go exactly as planned?"

No, but on the other hand, can the same unreliable, dishonest, immoral and unvirtuous government ensure that allowing general access to firearms will go exactly as planned?

You see, you talk the talk of sociological examination, but you seem to have neglected any form of critical reflection.

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary

"From a sociological perspective, it's interesting to note that those in favor of gun control tend to live in relatively safe and wealthy neighborhoods where the danger posed by violent crime is far less than in those neighborhoods where gun ownership is believed to be more acceptable if not necessary"

On the other hand, I've been mugged erm, 6 times? I've been violently assaulted without attempts to rob another half dozen or so. I don't tend to hang around in the sorts of places middle class WASPs would loiter, shall we say. I'm glad most of the people that cross my path are not armed, and have little to no idea how to get a gun.

You don't source this assertion as far as I saw - but you'll have to do better than 'it's interesting' in your analysis, I'm afraid.

No formatting, because too much typing already.

Blaming me for the destruction of the planet or whatever else seems... looney, at best.

"I've never met one that wasn't, and I know hundreds of scientists."

Send me (privately) the names and numbers of these hundreds of climate scientists and I'll conduct a survey. Or perhaps you should spend your days debating every single person online... Y'know.. for fun.

The authors of this article (both of them meteorology professors) have better climate science credentials than you do. One even served within the climate group that shared the Nobel prize with Al Gore for climate change advocacy.

(you may have to search for it online if this link does not let you read the full article)


If you really care about climate change, these are the folks you should be debating.. Not me... And not random people on videosift.

Good luck!

"Messrs. McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Al Gore."

Raise up to a higher level

I'm advocating passivity because I don't recognise overpopulation as a threat, more an inconvenience, and one that we couldn't really prevent even if we wanted to.

I don't see what's preposterous or optimistic about taking widely accepted birth rate data and projecting based off that. Birth rates are predictable and stable sampled over a large population. The data consistently shows that as societies come out of poverty, their birth rates fall. The only assumption here is that there isn't another GFC event that hinders growth which at this point is not particularly likely.

All taken into account we already know it's plateauing, and have known for decades. This isn't a hypothesis, it's happening right now. Unless you can show me why this trend will suddenly and irrevocably reverse, despite population data being incredibly stable and predictable historically, it seems the onus is on you to explain why you're so pessimistic.

Again, I think you're still conflating (1) what I want / whether it's bad versus (2) whether it could plausibly be stopped. I would also rather live in a less populated world. At current rates of technology and resource utilisation, things would be cheaper, there'd be more to go around. Reality is not like that. But as I said before, every policy focus has an opportunity cost. I don't see a plateauing population as a threat and I would rather see that effort devoted to poverty which will help reduce it anyway.

We're nowhere near an economic bubble. Maybe a short term stock market valuation bubble right now, but there's plenty of economic under-utilisation in the US and Europe, and China and other developing countries have decades to grow.

The term technological bubble is a bit nonsensical. You can have a technology sector bubble but actual physical technology which works now, will not magically stop working tomorrow based on inflated expectations. If you're saying instead we'll reach some cusp of innovation, well people have predicting that for decades.

We're nowhere near a peak oil event. Every time people say current known reserves are dwindling, they either (1) discover a huge reserve in under developed countries that were previously not surveyed (Africa and parts of SE Asia at the moment), or (2) something like fraking comes along which unlocks new supply. The US is forecast to be the largest oil exporter by 2020 based on that second point.

Hell, I'll play devil's advocate with you. Suppose we do reach a glut. We'll know this at least a decade ahead based on dwindling new reserve discoveries. The price of energy will leap up far, far ahead of us running out. That will spur innovation in more efficient sources of energy and will incentivise both individuals and businesses to be more energy efficient. A gradual adjustment like I've talked about endlessly here. Why am I wrong?

Environmental damage is a different issue and something that I agree needs to actually be addressed. I'm sure if you search back through my posts you'll see me talking about the economic rationale of addressing this directly when corporations who pollute aren't subject to the negative externalities that they impose in our current capitalist system and that will inherently create issues. Hopefully countries will take note of the smog clouds in China's big cities.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/04/15/survey-reveals-mens-rights-activists-are-almost-entirely-white-17-to-20-years-old

Okay, this really doesn't belong here. I don't think this comment stream is laced with comments by the type of man referenced in this article. But I thought it was funny. Written by a man about this type of man.

@BoneRemake
i am a man of faith.
do you feel as strongly about me as you do @bobknight33.
do you speak about me in the same tone?

everything i do.
everything i say.
every minute of every waking hour is based on my faith.
is born from my faith.

maybe it is because of my faith i read bobs commentary different.
when he states that human morality has moved on from biblical morality..he is correct.

and i thought it very prescient of him to recognize that fact.

in his second commentary i watched him attempt to express how the picture had become so much larger..and grander,which only served to cement his faith even stronger.he was not dismissing science,he was incorporating it into his faith.

which some here viewed as a dodge.
now maybe that is due to a pre-conceived idea of who bob actually is.
if you think bob is a fundamentalist then yes..his commentary may seem a tad...off.

but if you see bob as a man of faith,then his comment revealed a curiosity and desire to understand and an absolute awe at the way of things unfolding before us.

if we look at science as the understanding of the physical universe by way of theory,testing and repeatable applications of said testing.then science is actually the search for god/creator (from a faith viewpoint).

were you aware that 60% of surveyed scientists regarded themselves as people of *gasp* faith?

i see a lot of people making assumptions and presumptions about other sifters here on this thread.

so you need to ask yourself one question:
how did you come to your assumption in regards to anothers:motivations,intent,feelings,faith?

what tool did you use?

was it a crystal ball?
ouija board?
did you fall into a vat of nuclear waste and gain the super power of peering into another humans soul to discern their true intentions?

as humans we all assume to differing degrees,but if you are not a person of faith,then try to avoid those assumptions.

why not just ask bob?
he is usually gracious enough to interact with those he is full aware disagree with him..almost always.

ok.
enough ranting today.
you kids stay awesome,im off to get my pool ready !

Well, I thought I had been quite clear. The 'derision' with no argument from you was "Yeah, far be it from me to stand between you and your hacktivism! lol"
I understand why you want to ignore and/or drop it...that's fine.
My point was to clarify your statement "The North didn't go to war with slave-owning northern states, did it?", and it took quite a while to understand you were simply ascribing the label "northern" to any non-seceding state. You mistook that for me arguing that he went to war to free the slaves...I never said, or intended to imply that. It may have entered into his motivations, but was not the stated reason, or even the logical reason for joining the war.
Your description of events ignores the fact that 100% of the territory was part of the union, and taken by this new 'confederacy', an act of war by invasion/usurpation/theft.
My 'survey' included numerous websites descriptions, websites about the war not just based on one side or the other. As I said, you are welcome to disagree, but should be prepared to be challenged when you state claims about "northern/union slave owning states" It was all about that labeling.
Life is in the details. Blanket statements (especially obviously untrue ones) should be challenged. I can finally agree with your statement about public sentiment about slavery today. I agree, I split hairs to gain understanding.
I agree, I may have made a tangential argument, but I did it to clarify your argument (at east to myself), which seemed to be about what happened and how, not about Jon...mostly, that's why he's not germane.
Very well, if you have no interest that's fine. When you write pages of text about my digressions, it indicates the opposite. I hope you understand that. If you really aren't interested, just ignore me.

I honestly don't know what you're referring to with regards to 'derision,' but i don't really care. Probably best for us to drop it since it now appears that you're turning to some rather irrelevant issues. The original point about the "border states" was not how to label or refer to them, but to show that Lincoln did not 'emancipate' or invade them, thereby showing his motivations had nothing to do with freeing the slaves.

I don't know who specifically 'shot first' but this is what happened:

"Ft. Sumter was located in the middle of the harbor of Charleston, SC where the U.S. forts garrison had withdrawn to avoid incidents with local militias in the streets of the city. Unlike Buchanan who allowed commanders to relinquish possession to avoid bloodshed, Lincoln required Maj. Anderson to hold on until fired upon. Jefferson Davis ordered the surrender of the fort. Anderson gave a conditional reply which the Confederate government rejected, and Davis ordered P. G. T. Beauregard to attack the fort before a relief expedition could arrive."

The Confederacy ordered an attack on a fort in what it saw as its territory and therefore under Union occupation. The Union saw it as their fort.
Again, a survey of the opinion of people you know about who 'started it' does not the same thing as that "most reasonable people" would see it like you do.

More irrelevant splitting of hairs: in the United Sates of 2014 practically no one openly advocates institutionalized slavery or openly argue their "right" to own slaves. So for practical purposes, (almost) everyone is openly against slavery.
That, in any case, is totally irrelevant to the Jon Stewart video and so your comments are far from relevant.

"I'm not going to comment on Jon Stewarts motives or morality, they are not germane to the subject I'm discussing."
It's all well and good that you're not going to comment on Stewart's motives or morality, but most of what you constitute your "arguments" are not germane to what I'm discussing here, or to any of my original points prior to your digressions and tangential discussions about which I frankly have little interest. No offense.

For balance, most of the towns where drone strikes have been made already were completely controlled by people who hated America and harbored or cooperated with those actively working on killing Americans. Take a tour of the hundreds of drone strike targets in tribal Pakistan and you are surveying a region accepting the rule of militants so extreme that the Pakistani government is a secular heresy worthy of death to them. Pakistani law including the death sentence for blasphemy. Those regions being under such strong control of the militants that the Pakistani military can't go there for the casualties they would take trying to do so. The welcome for Americans(long before drone strikes were made) would have been even more vicious.

It is important to state that for as much legitimate reason to 'hate' American foreign policy as there is, there exist huge numbers of people who hate America for their own petty, vile and psychotic reasons. The Islamic fundamentalists that see Pakistan as too secular are plainly one such example, and saying they only hate America because they are justified is making excuses for monsters.

"No call 'being nasty"??!!... I understand the "likely" reasons for tagging it and everything, like collecting demographic data, surveying its migration habits and so on, but what the hell did you expect after serving it an unsollicited piercing using industrial staples?

Fantastic. I think i see little dust devils being whipped up which is interesting just because everything is so still before the engine stirs the dust. I love how much control there was searching for a flat area. Liveleak says they stopped to survey the area.

I was just commenting the other day how in a way it's great to see things like Russia speaking out for restraint with Iran, and now China doing something very impressive on the moon. I think with fingers crossed the forward thinking people of the earth have decided against "world wars" and mass destruction (no capitals, i'm not using the word in the style of Bush Jr).

Wouldn't it be great if the "competition" came from a purely technological space race with Russia, China and US/Europe involved? Just as long as we on this side can get past the whole psychopathic-capitalism problem.

It is my opinion that those mysterious money men who seem to have influence over scary media companies are metaphorically assembling people into a human pyramid, all shitting on those below us. The ones nearer the top and clambering their way up are happy enough not to have to be hit by that much shit whilst those at the bottom are drowning in it. The pyramid is so clogged up with shit that it's forming a sea of it and the people at the bottom are happy if they can manage to tread-shit for another week, the people at the top are now so high up they can't see it happening yet but eventually we're all going to drown in shit! Here's to a Merry Christmas, folks.

Ahem.

John Sedgwick, Union Army general was warned by his men to keep his head down while surveying Confederate lines in 1864.

His reply, literally was, "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist--"

War of 1812, Battle of Queenston Heights, US forces were planning a major assault and they wanted to be organized, so each type of supply was put in a boat of its own. Unfortunately, the boat with all the oars left first and nobody else could cross.

Stupidity is not generation-specific.

Though I do agree it seems to be getting worse.

Hooray for power!!

I LOVE thunderstorms!!!! Your description of that one is getting me all excited for one. How awesome to live so close to the water and get a view like that! I used to have a house with lakefrontage and seeing the lightning over the open water and hearing the booming thunder was quite a spectacular show...I sure miss it.

I didn't take part in that survey myself so I guess the % of women is slightly higher. I was a bit shocked though that there are so few women on this site. I have no idea what's scaring them off...other than the fact that there's such a strong male presence.

I just knew you would like that song!!! I don't think I've heard that Little Wing one before. And....speaking of songs. What a great assortment you've chosen for me today!! I'm having a busier than usual workday and it's nice to be able to have these songs playing in the background as I try to wrap my head around paper work. I've just started listening to them, so I will give you my opinion on these later on. I do have to say that the Baba O'Reily one I am VERY familiar with and it is another favorite!!

A couple more days!!! WHAT?? Did you forget to pay your power bill? I hope you have plenty of batteries!

In case you weren't aware, this site consists of about 90% males. That title alone would have been enough to sift it!! There was a sifter survey done here about a year ago...I'll attach it in case you're curious to see the demographics of the site...I thought the results were interesting. http://videosift.com/talk/SIFTER-SURVEY-RESULTS

Well ok then, if you would feel honored by the FSM touching YOU, than who am I to deny him...her...it.

I can not believe you didn't choose THIS Jimi Hendrix song. The greatest one of them all. It seems like exactly the type you'd like too. I was sure you would have preferred this one over Voodoo Child. Am I wrong?? Do you like this one?

It gets even weirder - the "no touching" zone doesn't actually align with the border perfectly in some places. Mostly these are places where it would be really inconvenient to run true to the border, such as small, steep gulch, so they just ran around it.

I know biologists doing wildlife surveys who have had to notify US Border Patrol that "while they would appear to be across the border, they wouldn't actually be across, because the border boundary is wrong at such and such a spot"

And to be fair to the Border Patrol, I've never heard of anyone being seriously hassled about this, as long as the Patrol was notified in advance.

Before watching this I know that Jim Norton is going to be right but be bad at making his points. The comedian they should've had was Louis CK, he's awesome.

Louis CK had a very good point in response to a Jim Norton joke actually. When you perform at a club you're performing in front of a group of people. You don't have time to take a survey and check what these people have been through, or what hotbutton issues they would have problems with. Everyone is different, for example my mom was murdered in a very not nice way, but my friends made jokes about her being dead all my life, it wasn't a big deal to me and I can separate my love for her and my love of a good joke. However I wouldn't expect that for everyone, some people wouldn't be ok with a joke about their mom being dead even if theirs is still alive. I think you can do what you do when you're watching TV, change the channel or remove yourself from that situation. You can face it if you want to and work through issues, and sometimes comedy can really help that by taking you to a dark place and making you laugh there. It's just we're humans, sticky soft disgusting humans.